Professional Documents
Culture Documents
At zero temperature and shear stress, a packing of that can sustain the applied shear stress. Or in practice, the
frictionless spheres interacting via repulsions jams into a probability of finding such jammed states is low. If states
disordered solid when its volume fraction exceeds constrained at the desired shear stress were quickly
a critical value c at the so-called point J [13]. As a generated, we would be able to sample the potential energy
simplified model to understand the noncrystalline liquid- landscape and locate the jamming transition at > 0, in a
solid transition of various materials including granular similar way to what was done for the jamming transition at
materials, foams, colloids, emulsions, and glasses, jammed 0 [3]. However, such an approach is apparently
packings of frictionless spheres exhibit interesting but lacking.
unusual critical behaviors at point J [317]. In this Letter, we report that the sampling of the potential
In addition to the volume fraction, shear stress and energy landscape under constant shear stress can be
temperature T are the other two control parameters to cause realized by minimizing a thermodynamic-like potential.
a generalized jamming transition, i.e., yielding and glass The yield stress determined from the probability of finding
transition [1]. A jammed solid remains rigid when subject jammed states is scaled well with the volume fraction. The
to a shear stress smaller than the yield stress y , while it finite size scaling of the yield stress indicates that point J is
unjams and flows otherwise. It has been shown that the a critical point associated with a diverging length. We find
yield stress of the T 0 jammed solids decreases when the same length scale in the finite size scaling of multiple
decreasing the volume fraction and vanishes at point J quantities under zero shear stress and with different particle
[7,12,18,19]. This is different from the glass transition interactions, implying the universality of the length scale.
temperature through the fact that in the T 0 limit the Moreover, by comparing properties of jammed states
glass transition occurs at a volume fraction lower than c obtained from our new approach and quasistatic shear,
[2026]. Therefore, point J is more relevant to the volume we find that quasistatic shear explores low-energy states in
fraction and shear stress than to the temperature. Jammed the potential energy landscape, which may provide us with
packings of frictionless spheres under applied shear stress a possible way to search for ultrastable glasses.
thus serve as typical systems to study the criticality of point Our systems are three dimensional with side length L
J [7,8,12]. (from L=2 to L=2) in all directions. Lees-Edwards
In most of the previous simulations, the yield stress of a boundary conditions are applied to mimic shearing [29],
jammed solid has been defined as either the average shear with the shear force and shear gradient in the x and y
stress of the quasistatic shear flow in which the shear stress directions, respectively. The system contains N=2 large and
is not a controllable parameter [18,19,27,28] or the critical N=2 small spheres with equal mass m and a diameter ratio
shear stress extrapolated from nonequilibrium molecular 1.4 to avoid crystallization. The interaction potential
dynamics simulations above which the system loses shear between particles i and j is
rigidity and flows forever [18,28]. In the potential energy
rij rij
landscape perspective, the yield stress corresponds to the U ij 1 1 ; (1)
critical shear stress above which there is no jammed state dij dij
f
0.4 = 0.680
states and minimize a thermodynamic-like potential for = 0.700
sheared nonequilibrium systems: 0.2
0
H~r1 ; ; ~rN ; U~r1 ; ; ~rN ; L3 (2) 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015
145502-2
week ending
PRL 112, 145502 (2014) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 11 APRIL 2014
10-1
(a) (b)
c, c,N
observation of the decay of the gap between two yield
10
-3 0,N 0, stresses approaching point J [18]. In the high volume
fraction
p regime studied here, w is inversely proportional to
y
10-1
0.5
stress is well defined with w 0. The gap between two
yn N
wN
-3 yield stresses should be a finite size effect, as already
10
10-2 suggested in Ref. [28].
To check whether the length described by Eq. (9) is
0 0.5 1 10-3 10-2 10-1 universal or just specific to the yield stress, we perform the
0.41
( c,) N c,N finite size analysis of typical quantities mostly of concern in
the study of jamming under zero shear stress. For each pair
FIG. 2 (color online). (a) Volume fraction and system size N of and N, we generate 10 000 independent states without
dependence of the yield stress y . The solid curves are the fits to
shear at T 0 (including jammed and unjammed) and then
the high data using Eq. (5). (b) System size dependence of the
fitting parameters c;N and 0;N in Eq. (5). The dashed lines do the average. Figure 3 demonstrates that the potential
are the fits using Eqs. (6) and (7). (c) Finite size scaling of the energy per particle u U=N, pressure p, coordination
reduced yield stress yn . (d) Volume fraction number z, and shear modulus G all show very nice finite
pdependence of the
width of the yield stress w multiplied by N. The dot-dashed size scaling with the same length scale as proposed by
line shows the scaling of Eq. (10). Eq. (9):
u c; 2 gu c; N 0.4 ; (11)
deviation is weaker when increasing the system size, which
is likely associated with the system size dependence of the p
c distribution [3,31]. c; gp c; N 0.4 ; (12)
2
The critical scaling of Eq. (5) inspires us to perform finite
size scaling of the yield stress. As shown in Fig. 2(c), the z zc; c; 0.5 gz c; N 0.4 ; (13)
yield stress indeed exhibits excellent finite size scaling,
again suggesting that point J at c; is critical. All the yield
stress data collapse nicely onto a master curve in the
following form: 100 100
(a) (b)
10-1
y -1
yn c; g c; N 10
0.4
(8) 10-2
0;N
(p/ ) N
0.8
uN
10-3
2
N = 64 10-2
-4 N = 256
with the limiting scaling of the yield stress being 10
N = 1024
y c; , where 0.41 0.02 is obtained to best 10-5
N = 4096 10-3
collapse all the data. Equation (8) implies a length 10
diverging at c; in the form (c) (d)
10-1
0.2
c; ; (9) 0
(z - zc,)
0.2
GN
10-2
where 1=3 0.81 0.05. Later we will show that -10
this length is not limited to the yield stress. Finite size
scaling of multiple quantities measured without shear -20 10-3
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
exhibits the same length scale. ( c,) N
0.4
( c,) N
0.4
145502-3
week ending
PRL 112, 145502 (2014) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 11 APRIL 2014
G c; 0.5 gG c; N 0.4 ; (14) As a comparison, we also show the results for quasistatic
shear sampling in Fig. 4. To mimic quasistatic shear, we
where zc; 6 is the isostatic value. We tune the exponent successively deform jammed states from 0 to 1 using a
of N from 0.41 to 0.4 to have the best data collapse. The step strain 104 followed by the potential energy
limiting scaling relations of these quantities are well known minimization. Ten thousand jammed states with different
for marginally jammed solids with harmonic repulsion shear stresses are obtained during one course of quasistatic
[3,13,15,25]. Equations (11) and (12) are simply related via shear, from which the shear stress dependence of the
p 2 dU=d, which leads to the factor 2 in Eq. (12) potential energy and coordination number can be achieved.
and the relation gp x 2gu x xgu0 x. The same length The results in Fig. 4 are from 1000 independent runs of
scale from the finite size scaling of the yield stress, quasistatic shear. In contrast to our random sampling,
potential energy, pressure, coordination number, and shear quasistatic shear leads to a decrease of both the potential
modulus suggests that the scaling exponent of the length energy and coordination number when increasing the shear
found here is universal for three-dimensional jammed states stress at low shear stresses. At all shear stresses, jammed
with harmonic repulsion. states found by quasistatic shear sampling always have
It has been shown that most of the scaling relations of lower potential energy and coordination number than those
marginally jammed states depend on the exponent in obtained from random sampling. This discrepancy implies
Eq. (1) of the particle interaction, except for the co- the biased nature of the quasistatic shear to sample the
ordination number [3]. It is thus possible that the finite potential energy landscape: it tends to explore low-energy
size scaling for the coordination number shown in Fig. 3(c) states.
also works for other interparticle potentials like Hertzian The bias of quasistatic shear sampling contains some
repulsion [ 2.5 in Eq. (1)]. If then, the same length scale interesting implications. For jammed states interacting via
would be observed in the finite size scaling of multiple repulsions, lower coordination number and potential energy
quantities for Hertzian repulsion as well. We repeat Fig. 3 mean that the states are closer to the unjamming transition
for Hertzian repulsion (see the Supplemental Material [32]) subject to the change of volume fraction. This explains why
and indeed find the same length scale. Therefore, the length the critical volume fraction of the jamming transition
scale reported here may be independent of interparticle determined from quasistatic shear sampling is higher than
potential, at least for harmonic and Hertzian repulsions. that from random sampling at 0 [7,19].
Minimizing the thermodynamic-like potential enables us More interestingly, for the case shown in Fig. 4, quasi-
to sample jammed states under the desired shear stress. static shear can find states with potential energy about 35%
Because the initial random states before minimization are lower than the normal value. This is actually analogous to
independently selected, our sampling of the potential the fact that inherent structures with lower potential energy
energy landscape is unbiased. We can thus have an can be explored by supercooled liquids with slower cooling
unbiased statistical picture of how the properties of jammed rate [33]. However, the advantage of quasistatic shear is
solids vary with shear stress. In Fig. 4, we show the that it can overcome energy barriers easily and thus
potential energy per particle and coordination number efficiently speed up the search of low-energy states.
averaged over jammed states under the same shear stress Recently, it has been reported that ultrastable glasses with
obtained from the unbiased random sampling. When low energy and aged over thousands of years can be
increasing the shear stress, both the potential energy and quickly obtained from a vapor deposition method
coordination number show a plateau at low shear stresses [34,35]. Since quasistatic shear tends to explore low-energy
and shoot up near yielding. states, it may provide us with an alternate efficient way to
search for ultrastable glasses.
(a) (b)
In conclusion, we sample the potential energy landscape
0.06 6.9 under the constraint of constant shear stress by minimizing
a thermodynamic-like potential. Using this new approach,
6.8 we obtain the yield stress of jammed solids from measuring
z
u
0.04
the probability of finding jammed states under constant
6.7
shear stress. The yield stress and multiple quantities
0.02 measured without shear all show very nice finite size
0 0.0002 0.0004 0 0.0002 0.0004 scaling, from which we obtain a universal length scale
described in Eq. (8). Multiple length scales have been
FIG. 4 (color online). Shear stress dependence of (a) the reported for the jamming transition at point J in different
potential energy per particle u and (b) coordination number z measurements [311], which may also be one of the most
obtained from random sampling (circles) and quasistatic shear special and elusive features of the criticality of point J. The
sampling (squares). The systems consist of N 1024 particles at length scale reported here is robust for three-dimensional
0.66. The solid curves are to guide the eye. systems because it is associated with multiple quantities
145502-4
week ending
PRL 112, 145502 (2014) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 11 APRIL 2014
and is possibly independent of the interparticle potential. [14] N. Xu, V. Vitelli, M. Wyart, A. J. Liu, and S. R. Nagel, Phys.
Moreover, we propose to look for low-energy ultrastable Rev. Lett. 102, 038001 (2009); V. Vitelli, N. Xu, M. Wyart,
glasses using quasistatic shear because it can explore low- A. J. Liu, and S. R. Nagel, Phys. Rev. E 81, 021301 (2010).
energy states efficiently. [15] C. Zhao, K. Tian, and N. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 125503
(2011).
We are grateful to Kunimasa Miyazaki and Stephen Teitel [16] A. S. Keys, A. R. Abate, S. C. Glotzer, and D. J. Durian,
for helpful discussions. This work is supported by National Nat. Phys. 3, 260 (2007).
Natural Science Foundation of China Grants No. 21325418 [17] D. A. Head, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 138001 (2009).
and No. 11074228, National Basic Research Program of [18] M. Pica Ciamarra and A. Coniglio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103,
235701 (2009).
China (973 Program) No. 2012CB821500, CAS 100- [19] C. Heussinger and J.-L. Barrat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 218303
Talent Program No. 2030020004, and Fundamental (2009).
Research Funds for the Central Universities Grant [20] A. Ikeda, L. Berthier, and P. Sollich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109,
No. 2340000034. 018301 (2012).
[21] F. Krzakala and J. Kurchan, Phys. Rev. E 76, 021122
(2007).
[22] L. Berthier and T. A. Witten, Phys. Rev. E 80, 021502
*
ningxu@ustc.edu.cn (2009); Europhys. Lett. 86, 10001 (2009).
[23] G. Parisi and F. Zamponi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 789 (2010).
Present address: Department of Physics, New York Uni-
versity, New York, NY 10012, USA [24] Z. Zhang, N. Xu, D. T. N. Chen, P. Yunker, A. M. Alsayed,
[1] A. J. Liu and S. R. Nagel, Nature (London) 396, 21 (1998). K. B. Aptowicz, P. Habdas, A. J. Liu, S. R. Nagel, and A. G.
[2] M. van Hecke, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 22, 033101 (2010). Yodh, Nature (London) 459, 230 (2009).
[3] C. S. OHern, L. E. Silbert, A. J. Liu, and S. R. Nagel, Phys. [25] L. Wang and N. Xu, Soft Matter 9, 2475 (2013).
Rev. E 68, 011306 (2003). [26] P. Olsson and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. E 88, 010301(R)
[4] L. E. Silbert, A. J. Liu, and S. R. Nagel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2013).
098301 (2005). [27] L. Berthier and J.-L. Barrat, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 6228
[5] M. Wyart, L. E. Silbert, S. R. Nagel, and T. A. Witten, Phys. (2002).
Rev. E 72, 051306 (2005); M. Wyart, S. R. Nagel, and T. A. [28] N. Xu and C. S. OHern, Phys. Rev. E 73, 061303 (2006).
Witten, Europhys. Lett. 72, 486 (2005). [29] M. P. Allen and D. J. Tildesley, Computer Simulation of
[6] W. G. Ellenbroek, E. Somfai, M. van Hecke, and W. van Liquids (Oxford University Press, New York, 1987).
Saarloos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 258001 (2006). [30] E. Bitzek, P. Koskinen, F. Ghler, M. Moseler, and P.
[7] P. Olsson and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 178001 (2007); Gumbsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 170201 (2006).
D. Vgberg, D. Valdez-Balderas, M. A. Moore, P. Olsson, [31] N. Xu, J. Blawzdziewicz, and C. S. OHern, Phys. Rev. E
and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. E 83, 030303(R) (2011). 71, 061306 (2005).
[8] T. Hatano, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 77, 123002 (2008). [32] See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/
[9] C. P. Goodrich, A. J. Liu, and S. R. Nagel, Phys. Rev. Lett. supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.145502 for finite
109, 095704 (2012). size scaling of systems with Hertzian repulsion.
[10] J. A. Drocco, M. B. Hastings, C. J. Olson Reichhardt, and C. [33] S. Sastry, P. G. Debenedetti, and F. H. Stillinger, Nature
Reichhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 088001 (2005). (London) 393, 554 (1998).
[11] M. Ozawa, T. Kuroiwa, A. Ikeda, and K. Miyazaki, Phys. [34] S. F. Swallen, K. L. Kearns, M. K. Mapes, Y. S. Kim, R. J.
Rev. Lett. 109, 205701 (2012). McMahon, M. D. Ediger, T. Wu, L. Yu, and S. Satija,
[12] B. P. Tighe, E. Woldhuis, J. J. C. Remmers, W. van Saarloos, Science 315, 353 (2007).
and M. van Hecke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 088303 (2010). [35] S. Singh, M. D. Ediger, and J. J. de Pablo, Nat. Mater. 12,
[13] D. J. Durian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4780 (1995). 139 (2013).
145502-5